That is approximately 1.5 billion people in the world whom you deem as having a complete disregard for peacefulness. Do you understand now how ridiculous it sounds when you wish to portray Islam, in its entirety as not being a religion of peace?

You can point to Islamic texts sure, but that means fuck all. There are horrible bits in the Bible too. Most civilized people tend to ignore those parts and go for a more nuanced interpretation.

Yes there are a few radical Islamic groups out there in the world, but you'll never guess where their encouragement and a sizeable portion of their funding came from... When the Mujahadeen were fighting the Soviets, the CIA provided support for them, as well as for non-Afghani radicals (among whom was Osama Bin Laden - who may not have directly been funded, but the influx of non-Afghani militia was certainly not frowned upon at the time by the US), and were a major contributing factor in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The radical Islamic groups may not have toppled the Soviets without Western assistance, and their toppling of Soviets is what led the radicals to believe that they could also topple the West. The simple fact of the matter is that our beloved "enlightened West" helped create the fucking mess we're in, in an effort to win the Cold War. You might not like that, but that is the way it is.

And, no, DD -You explicitly in the OP state that you agree with his biggotry, Islamophobia, and stance on cultural invasion but disagree with the means by which he dealt with it.

FIRST TWO LINES!

There is no rational reason for intentional and explicit hate against a near-quarter of the planet whom aren't blowing up buildings. It's like ragging on Christians for the KKK and the Inquisition -it certainly is done when they act as if they're perfect, but we're not holding them personally accountable for things that uncivilized people who whipe their ass with their hand would have thought.

Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.

I have never claimed 1.5 billion people believe this or that. I know there are plenty of "moderate" and even non-practicing Muslims and also a lot of devout Muslims who genuinely believe in a peaceful interpretation. Their political leaders however... hmmm that's another story. You have the Saudi government for example funding several projects in the West (mosques, madrassas) and teaching separatism and anti-western hatred, in a kind of cultural jihad, while the more "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood sets up pressure groups in the West as exposed during the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Laurens, I think you might be a bit naive to think this started in the Cold War. Forget the terrorists, the "suit and tie" jihadists (i.e. the "peaceful" Islamists) who hope to impose Sharia law by political/cultural subversive means are just as dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has existed long before the Cold War, and it was formed shortly after the abolition of the Caliphate (once again thanks to Ataturk, the secularist). Coincidence?

Islam has had ambitions of conquest and political domination from its early days.

The dark red area is Mohammed's expansion. (That's the Arabian Peninsula, which is now home of KSA and Wahhabism)The red area, expansion under the first Caliphate, Rashidun. (632-661)The yellow area, expansion under the second Caliphate, Umayyad. (661-750)

In Sirat Rasul Allah (Life of the Messenger of Allah), biography of Mohammed, we can clearly see his ambitions of conquest which became more evident by the end of his life. I mean this guy went from prophet to political and military leader:

Certain tribes still remained who had not accepted Islam, so the apostle sent Khalid to the Banu alÃ¢â‚¬â€˜Harith in Najran, with orders to give them three days to embrace Islam, and thereafter to subdue them if they refused. Khalid sent out mounted parties in every direction to invite the people to Islam, shouting, 'Make profession of Islam and you will be saved!' The people responded to the call and entered the religion, and Khalid remained among them to teach them the doctrines of Islam, the Koran, and the ordinances of the apostle of Allah. After a time, Khalid brought a deputation of the Banu alÃ¢â‚¬â€˜Harith to meet the apostle at Medina.

My own ancestors in Romanian lands were also constantly fending off the Islamist Ottoman Empire. This conflict of Romanians vs. Ottomans is a subject you'll frequently find in literature or the history class. If they ever succeeded we would have probably become an Islamic repulsive... sorry, republic, by today.

Do I blame ALL wars on Islam? Of course not. Wars can happen with or without religion due to humans' inherently tribal nature. But certainly if the role of religion was diminished the divine justification for war would go away.

As for Christianity, well yeah there are a lot of wacky shit in the Bible as well, but a lot of the fascist bullshit (like we see in Leviticus for example) Christians claim doesn't matter anymore (even Jews don't follow those barbaric OT laws anymore) and we see this in practice. Even Jesus explicitly overrode some of the stuff in there like "eye of eye" plus he was never a military leader like Mohammed. We have not see a firmly secular approach to politics in the Islamic world, except for a few countries like Turkey, and even that has been shaky with Muslim fundamentalists constantly trying to get into politics and revert everyone to the rule of God. (whether they like it or not)

Luckily their constitution is secular enough to keep them at bay (parties have been disbanded in the past for being too Islamic for their own good) but it's not certain how long that will last in this ever-changing world.

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

I have never claimed 1.5 billion people believe this or that. I know there are plenty of "moderate" and even non-practicing Muslims and also a lot of devout Muslims who genuinely believe in a peaceful interpretation. Their political leaders however... hmmm that's another story. You have the Saudi government for example funding several projects in the West (mosques, madrassas) and teaching separatism and anti-western hatred, in a kind of cultural jihad, while the more "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood sets up pressure groups in the West as exposed during the Holy Land Foundation trial.

You said Islam is not a religion of peace. What is it then? A religion of war, conflict and violence? That is what your statement implies, and if that isn't what you mean then you need to word things a little more carefully. There are also Islamic groups that are very much against terrorism, and pro integration. There are Christian groups that preach subversion and bigotry. So what?

(EDIT) and which country is an ally of Saudi Arabia btw?

Laurens, I think you might be a bit naive to think this started in the Cold War. Forget the terrorists, the "suit and tie" jihadists (i.e. the "peaceful" Islamists) who hope to impose Sharia law by political/cultural subversive means are just as dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has existed long before the Cold War, and it was formed shortly after the abolition of the Caliphate (once again thanks to Ataturk, the secularist). Coincidence?

Islam has had ambitions of conquest and political domination from its early days.

I appreciate that like Christianity Islam has been a conquering religion in the past. I am talking about the modern situation, and the rise of radical Islamic terrorism. The US is an ally of Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (although I am not 100% up to date on their current relations), and it has also been an ally of Afghanistan. Lots of US funding went into these places when the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan, and aided the cause of radical Islam in defeating the Soviets. I can't make a specific claim that the US funded Bin Laden, however from what I understand they actively encouraged non-Afghan militia to join the conflict, of which Bin Laden was one. This created a situation in which it wasn't just Afghans vs the Soviets, it became, in their eyes Islam vs the Soviet empire, and this is significant, because this ideology then later became Islam vs the West. When this ideology was born there were lots of armed and well funded groups ready to see it through. Sorry if you cannot see the significance of this, but I'd say its very important in understanding modern political Islam.

EDIT

Its important to note that I am not trying to defend radical Islam here or apologise for it. I think it is a real threat and needs to be dealt with, however I think it is important to understand it in its proper context. If anything, our role in it doubles our responsibility to deal with it.

I'm not sure what Christian groups you are talking about. I mean Westboro's little cult calling for USA to implement the death penalty for homosexuality I suppose comes close, but they're such a small group they are laughable (yet their main figures have already been declared persona non-grata in a western country like UK, no outcries of Christianophobia).

The "Jesus Camp" "TAKE BECK 'MERICUH FOR JEBUS!" right-wing crowd seems pretty disturbing as well to me, but still doesn't reach the level of disturbing I find among Muslim fundamentalist groups.

I dunno maybe it's just me, but I simply don't find the same level of insanity among Christians, or Hindus or anyone else.

And once again, the terrorists aren't the only ones who can cause trouble. There are plenty of suit and tie jihadists and now that they're in power in the newly liberated Egypt, along with several other "liberated" countries, let the news of religious abuse flow. I'll be there to comment on it and say "See? I told you not to mix religion and politics."

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Dogma's Demise wrote:I'm not sure what Christian groups you are talking about. I mean Westboro's little cult calling for USA to implement the death penalty for homosexuality I suppose comes close, but they're such a small group they are laughable (yet their main figures have already been declared persona non-grata in a western country like UK, no outcries of Christianophobia).

The "Jesus Camp" "TAKE BECK 'MERICUH FOR JEBUS!" right-wing crowd seems pretty disturbing as well to me, but still doesn't reach the level of disturbing I find among Muslim fundamentalist groups.

I dunno maybe it's just me, but I simply don't find the same level of insanity among Christians, or Hindus or anyone else.

I think Christianity is more of a threat to secularism in the West than Islam. Look at all the creationist groups lobbying to undermine science education. Look at all the Christian groups vying to have control over marriage legislation, stem cell research, abortion and so on. Christianity is much more of a problem in American politics than Islam - the only time I hear Islam mentioned in regards to American internal politics is from fundie Christians who insist that Obama is a Muslim.

The picture is not quite so stark over here, but we have bishops in the House of Lords, we have a Prime Minister who has issued statements declaring that this is a Christian country. We have a head of state who is also the head of the church. I think you need to consider just who does the most erosion of secularism in the West. As far as I am aware Islam does not have half as much influence over here or in America.

And once again, the terrorists aren't the only ones who can cause trouble. There are plenty of suit and tie jihadists and now that they're in power in the newly liberated Egypt, along with several other "liberated" countries, let the news of religious abuse flow. I'll be there to comment on it and say "See? I told you not to mix religion and politics."

What do you mean suit and tie jihadists? Where are they? What do they do?

The suit and tie jihadists - Well they're basically anyone who want to subvert western democracy and replace it with the rule of Sharia (or if there is no western democracy then just implement Sharia), by relatively non-violent means (political, cultural).

As I pointed out a while ago, this is happening in Egypt and several other countries liberated in the Arab Spring. MB formed a political party and won 45% of seats in Parliament, another 25% were won by other Islamists. Do I defend Mubarak's regime? HELL NO! I just wish people would understand once and for all that religion and politics don't mix well.

Turkey is also plagued by Islamists every once in a while, but so far they're fending off (so far). When a party becomes too Islamic for its own good it's usually outlawed and officially disbanded.

I do hope Turkey survives, I wouldn't want to blacklist it permanently from my travel list.

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Dogma's Demise wrote:The suit and tie jihadists - Well they're basically anyone who want to subvert western democracy and replace it with the rule of Sharia (or if there is no western democracy then just implement Sharia), by relatively non-violent means (political, cultural).

I was hoping you'd be a little more specific than that. What makes these any different than Christians who wish to subvert secularism and democracy and replace it with Christian theocracy via non violent cultural and political means?

As I pointed out a while ago, this is happening in Egypt and several other countries liberated in the Arab Spring. MB formed a political party and won 45% of seats in Parliament, another 25% were won by other Islamists. Do I defend Mubarak's regime? HELL NO! I just wish people would understand once and for all that religion and politics don't mix well.

I'm sure if they do come to understand that, that will be reflected in future elections.

Laurens wrote:I was hoping you'd be a little more specific than that. What makes these any different than Christians who wish to subvert secularism and democracy and replace it with Christian theocracy via non violent cultural and political means?

Well to put it simply, political Christianity tends to be more relaxed than political Islam (i.e. not so strict).

They don't cut off limbs for thievery. There isn't that wide spread support for death penalty for sodomy. Like, they might ban a vice or two and even then they won't enforce it too much. Economically, Sharia also tends to be more restrictive, I mean no interest, no investments in "haraam" (pork, porn, alcohol etc.) errr ... I mean don't you find that a bit too restrictive? I mean look, if you want to argue that interest is bad, at least please do so in a secular context. Let's leave "God's will" out of the picture.

Not to say I don't find it horrible what they're doing to the education system by trying to get Evolution out of it or to ban stem cell research which can save millions of life in the future. But I haven't seen much cries for "Christianophobia". Have you? It's not even a word. It doesn't exist.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about a constitutional amendment to make for example private consenting adult sexual activity a protected right? (Basically closing the door to religious fascists to regulate the sex life of its citizens?)

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:It's cool that the Muslim Brotherhood actively organized the ousting of a dictator in Egypt.

But how DARE THEY organize to bid their political ideology?!

So liberation, but only for those who are Muslim and male... How nice. Well let me assure you, there cannot be any genuine liberation without secularism. Stop defending the MB, Mubarak wasn't a good guy but neither are they. What they are is a bunch of religious fascists who want the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

And of course we have Joker boy yet again trying to turn a non-racial issue into a racial issue, when it's really about secularism vs. the opposite.

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

ImprobableJoe wrote:And obviously, just like with his thread on Palestine, DD has no interest in the subject of his own thread other than as an excuse for the same stupid bigotry as in all of his other threads.

Seriously, this is just self parody at this point. What else will he name his next thread?

Thread title: "I love puppies"

OP: I love puppies. It's true; I love them SO much. In fact, I think I love them as much as I fear muslims...which is a lot...let me tell you in more detail how much I hate muslims.

ImprobableJoe wrote:And obviously, just like with his thread on Palestine, DD has no interest in the subject of his own thread other than as an excuse for the same stupid bigotry as in all of his other threads.

Seriously, this is just self parody at this point. What else will he name his next thread?

Thread title: "I love puppies"

OP: I love puppies. It's true; I love them SO much. In fact, I think I love them as much as I fear muslims...which is a lot...let me tell you in more detail how much I hate muslims.

*meltdown into another anti muslim rant*

I know, right?

"My grandma had cancer, and it killed her. Western countries are like my granny: old and white and smells like talcum powder and white cheddar popcorn. And Muslim immigrants are like cancer!

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:It's cool that the Muslim Brotherhood actively organized the ousting of a dictator in Egypt.

But how DARE THEY organize to bid their political ideology?!

So liberation, but only for those who are Muslim and male... How nice. Well let me assure you, there cannot be any genuine liberation without secularism. Stop defending the MB, Mubarak wasn't a good guy but neither are they. What they are is a bunch of religious fascists who want the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

And of course we have Joker boy yet again trying to turn a non-racial issue into a racial issue, when it's really about secularism vs. the opposite.

The thing is, the Egyptian people voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, so what can you do?

I don't think that DD realizes that being a Muslim in Egypt is like being a Christian in America.

You can be others - but you're not going to hold an office if you're not, and people are most likely going to vote for people with a similar set of ideologies that they hold. Men and women both voted in this election. So did homosexuals and non-Muslims.

This is what's called "Democracy"

Some would insinuate that being drunk at 9 in the morning to be signs of serious issues.Me? I'd insinuate it as signs of no plans and a refrigerator full of Whiskey and Guinness.

No, you misunderstand, democracy is only democracy when DD agrees with the outcome.

Come now Hytegia, this is basic politics.

No, but I think there are some things above the people's will since I actually believe in genuine democracy as opposed to dictatorship of the majority. I mean seriously if 51% vote to repeal your right to life you're okay with that?

Secularism is one of things I think all democracies should have. Ataturk realized this and that's why in Turkey right now, Islamist parties don't last very long, regardless of how many people vote for them.

)O( Hytegia )O( wrote:I don't think that DD realizes that being a Muslim in Egypt is like being a Christian in America.

You can be others - but you're not going to hold an office if you're not, and people are most likely going to vote for people with a similar set of ideologies that they hold. Men and women both voted in this election. So did homosexuals and non-Muslims.

This is what's called "Democracy"

Oh how convenient, then don't complain about Europeans who vote for so-called "far right" parties and politicians like Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen.

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government" - Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Dogma's Demise wrote:No, but I think there are some things above the people's will since I actually believe in genuine democracy as opposed to dictatorship of the majority. I mean seriously if 51% vote to repeal your right to life you're okay with that?

What do you mean repealing your right to life? Can you explain how the Egyptian system will allow a dictatorship of the majority?

Secularism is one of things I think all democracies should have. Ataturk realized this and that's why in Turkey right now, Islamist parties don't last very long, regardless of how many people vote for them.

Democratic systems take into account what the people want. If the majority of a country is Islamic, they might be likely to vote for Islamic parties, that's how it works. How do you propose we enforce secularism on democracies anyhow?

As Churchill said: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Democracy is not perfect, when the people decide who they want to run their country, problems can arise. I don't think a democracy would be a democracy, however, if you exclude certain parties, as you seem to be advocating...